Download The Empty Space in Theatre and Psychoanalysis Slađana

Performing and Visual Arts
The Empty Space in Theatre and Psychoanalysis
Slađana Milićević, Teaching Assistant
Tatjana Dadić Dinulović PhD, Associate Professor
Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia
ABSTRACT
The notion of empty space in this work was defined on the basis of theoretical
investigations in the fields of theatre, psychoanalysis, philosophy, and theory of space.
Understanding of the empty space in theatre was based onto the theories of a British
director Peter Brook, while the theoretical postulates of Jacques Lacan were taken from
the field of psychoanalysis. Concept of the emptiness, which Peter Brook defines as the
ultimate condition for emergence of the truly theatrical experience, was analyzed in a
relation to Lacan’s most intriguing concept of the Real. The emptiness needed for the
theatrical act was associated with the subject’s inner emptiness, which upon Lacan has
extimité character. The notion of empty space, necessary for creating the “new“ (in
theatre likewise in psychoanalysis), was also connected with the notion of “minimal
difference“ defined by a French philosopher Alain Badiou. Badiou’s psychoanalytic
interpretation of the new gave grounds for the comprehension of the empty space in a
wider context, as a key element in constructing and reconstructing of the contemporary
social and everyday reality.
The main objective of this work was to give a specific psychoanalytical reading of the
concept of empty space in theatre in order to illuminate different roles that theatre could
have inside and outside of its own professional background. Another aim was deepening
and encouraging further inquiries in the obviously akin fields of theatre and
psychoanalysis.
Keywords: empty space, theatre, psychoanalysis, the Real
INTRODUCTION, OR, WHY SHOULD WE TALK ABOUT THE EMPTY
SPACE?
Space is a kind of a liminal domain, while the empty space is its more radical form.
However, what is actually so radical in the concept of space, or the empty space? Why
should we think about the empty space or better, what can we expect from that concept?
It is possible to think about the empty space from several different aspects, formal logic,
philosophical, psychological, artistic, or even religious. But, the question is what we can
expect from something that is actually “nothing”. Nevertheless, it would be naïve of us,
if we do not put that nothing in quotes. Exactly those quotation marks, the intention that
there is something more that we wanted to mark, something inexpressible that the word
alone can’t convey, that is the reason we are still thinking about the empty space. Do we
expect to finally explain, define, or, to say in a psychoanalytic way to symbolize that
loss? Based on different definitions, primarily from philosophy and psychoanalysis, the
SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts
thesis that has been established is that the empty space is a metaphor for presenting
“that” very part of reality that is always escaping us, that is incomprehensible, but which
is, at the same time, a kinetic energy for our process of knowing, something that keeps
us “cognitively” active, that forces our relationship to the reality, and to ourselves.
Finally, the thesis of this work is that it is important to think about empty space, explore
it, mainly because our epoch is substantially rooted in some kind of empty space.
Michel Foucault defined the 20th century as a period dominated by space, but, according
to author’s belief, the beginning of 21st century is much more an epoch of empty space.
If in Foucault’s time space got its political and social dimension, if the project of
“spatial turn” discovered the idea of space in an everyday experience [1], if the space
was materialized in here and now, today the term of space has lost that material depth.
The surface of a contemporary spectacle is a process which on one side strengthens the
feeling of emptiness in a spatial experience, while, on the other side, the contemporary
subject almost half a century distant finally realizes and lives its fate of the empty
postmodern subjectivity. [2] Namely, if the Real is truly back, something that Hal
Foster implies in his book titled The return of the Real 1996, as well as Slavoj Žižek in
his philosophical reading of Lacan and interrogating of the Real in the book with the
same title 2006, and, if on the wider plan, outside the customs and habits of neoliberal
concept that we all refrain from, we acknowledge that we do not have any ideological
project for an individual to accomplish, [3] again to say in psychoanalytic manner,
process of the subjectivization in symbolic order, then there is still a possibility that we
are trapped in a traumatized experience of emptiness in the Real. It is also a fact that we
are bombed more than ever with various different narratives and that there is a
diversification of all possible ideologies present on the scene. Still, each of us under the
rose knows that the surface of those symbolic I lies in the nothing, in the empty space.
And, while the offer of different ideological (symbolic) projects is bigger, the horror of
the “real” presence of empty space is more rooted. However, comprehending that
emptiness as a space of potential is the real reason for analyzing the empty space in this
work, especially of Peter Brook’s empty space.
EMPTY SPACE AS A LIMINAL CONCEPT (IN PHILOSOPHY AND
PSYCHOANALYSIS)
In the 20th century some concrete, scientific theories of space were formed.
Nevertheless, the space still remains conundrum and term which involves the series of
speculative thinking. In comprehending the notion of space some questions arise, if
space and empty space exist as such, if space is reality separated from man’s
experience, or it is only a posteriori construct of human mind?
Two most influential theories in philosophy dealing with those questions, whose
phenomenological validity is justifiable even today, are Leibniz’s theory of relational
space and Newton’s theory of absolute space. According to the first one the space as
such doesn’t exist. It exists only as a system of a relation among things. There is a
matter, which takes place and different positions in regard to its own spreading. The
second theory confirms the existence of space that is homogeneous, isotropic, infinite,
three-dimensional, that exists apart from all other things contained in that space. The
first theory of course excludes any idea of empty space, while the second is essentially
based on the idea of empty space. Leibniz has invested an enormous effort during his
Performing and Visual Arts
correspondence with Newton to question the existence of absolute space. In his opinion
empty space is pure imagination, which can be speculated about in the same way as the
space of universe. Namely, in Ancient Philosophy the emptiness was also the term used
for cosmic and transcendent, except the Atomist School of Leucippus and Democritus
who thought that emptiness is reality as much as matter. [4]
However, if the empty space really existed, then it would have meant that there is
nothing in that space, so the space alone would have been something. But, it is hard to
imagine that space is something, some substance, or tangible reality, because, if space
represents something like that, it would be possible to destroy it, or to change it for
some other substance. Furthermore, it would mean that one can imagine the existence of
a space as such, which would actually be impossible, at least according to Immanuel
Kant. So, since it is impossible to imagine non-existence of space, and because the
existence of empty space is also logically impossible, the phrase “empty space” alone
becomes a kind of a metaphor just for impossible, for representation of that logical
breakdown that we are confronting with every time we think of infinity, death or
unconscious in psychoanalysis.
The idea of unconscious is a concept that represents exactly that logical breakdown for
the conscious thought, mostly because for the rational thought it is hard to assume that
right in that conscious part, Cartesian part which we are not used to doubt, that right
there is some emptiness, dark blot, unknown, or even to assume that all our psychic
apparatus is constituted thanks to that unconscious part. Therefore, psychoanalysis has
confronted us for the first time with the fact that there is some gap in “Cogito ergo
sum”, some empty space between two “I”, one in “I think”, and the other in “I am”.
Lacan called this empty space the Real, and that is a key concept for his theoretical
system of Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary. RSI theory describes the way in which the
subject experiences or comes to know reality. According to this theory there are three
ways for doing that. The first way includes understanding through language, and that
knowledge belongs to the Symbolic order. The second is Imaginary, which means the
knowledge seized by images. And the third is the Real, the knowledge impossible to
achieve. For this impossible kind of knowledge, it is only possible to mark the space,
and that space is what Lacan has called the empty space. So, the Real is emptiness,
nothing, impossible, that which is not meaningful, but still something that powers and
maintains Symbolic and Imaginary order. [5] In a relation to reality, which is a set of
subjective phantasies, the Real is a part of reality with traumatic effects it has upon the
subject, and which the subject strives to fill with phantasmic contents. Hence, the first
role of empty space in psychoanalysis is to denote a space for the impossible Real.
Lacan used one more characteristic of the empty space. In the very core of the Lacanian
subject is emptiness, which has a specific extimité character, because it is experienced
by the subject at the same time as outside and as interior. Lacan has created a special
word extimité for this character of the innermost place of the subject, which is a
compound of intimacy and prefix ex- which stands for something that is outside.
However, it is interesting that the word (extimité) itself is not enough. For defining the
subject’s core the notion of empty space is also necessary. Lacan here used the double
character of space, which is in human mind simultaneously present as a subjective
feeling, but as an objective reality also, as an inner form, just as an outside one.
SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts
EMPTY SPACE AS REAL
Even if Peter Brook did not acknowledge that his term of empty space had anything in
common with the Freud’s term of unconscious [6], even if at the lecture given in 1998
at the British Psychoanalytic Society he made the connections between theatre and
psychoanalysis on some other places, the standpoint of the authors of this work is that
the empty space is the real connection between these two fields.
According to Brook, the crux of theatrical experience is in the unknown: „If the theatre
has anything to offer it is a taste of something that can't be explained and can't be
defined, but which can be experienced as a concrete reality“, [7] and that already shows
that the theatrical mystery has something in common with the enigmatic term of Real.
The Real, having the character of impossible, demands the idea of empty space.
However, what directly makes a connection between Lacanian psychoanalysis and
Brook’s notion of theatre is an attitude towards reality. Emptiness which permeates the
theatrical reality according to Brook is a space of the invisible, which exists on the stage
parallel with the real space-time. Exactly that, he claims, is a thing which forever
divides the theatrical and filmic experience. „In the theatre, the imagination fills the
space, whereas the cinema screen represents the whole, demanding that everything in
the frame be linked in a logically coherent manner. Emptiness in the theatre allows the
imagination to fill the gaps “. [8] This conception of reality in the theatre, where the
emptiness is a driving element, highly resembles Lacanian theory of Real, Symbolic,
and Imaginary. Lacan’s reality is also not a whole entity, or a causal continuity, but it
includes the number of gaps, cuts, discontinuities, which Brook, likewise
psychoanalysis, defines as emptiness. Žižek says: “Reality is never given in totality;
there is always emptiness in its centre that is filled with monstrous phantoms”. [9]
The structure of reality in both cases is identical. There is some emptiness in a whole,
visible picture of reality, which because of its traumatic character (fear of empty space)
forces the creation of new scenic images, new phantasmatic scenes that have been made
in order to fill that empty space. Parallel between Peter Brook’s empty space and
Lacanian Real is almost absolute. The key psychoanalytical term is in a direct relation
to the one most essential in theatre, which makes distinction between the filmic and all
other arts. Eventually, both terms are defined as an empty space.
Brook says that the empty space is present in another specific moment, which is always
“a present” moment, and which is always identified within that authentic theatrical
experience of “silence” in which the audience is recognizing “the irresistible presence of
life“. This presence of life is a feeling in which, for the moment, something in the
experience of reality becomes truly real. That exciting moment is a kind of detachment
from the everyday reality. In silence of this very moment the invisible becomes visible,
and it is a true reason for which the high-quality theatre exists. That is a moment when
communication between the actors and the audience is established, what is actually an
ultimate goal of every theatrical work.
„All human impulses towards what we call in an imprecise and clumsy manner
"quality", come from a source whose true nature we entirely ignore but which we are
perfectly capable of recognizing when it appears either in ourselves or in another
person. It is not communicated through noise but through silence“. [10]
Performing and Visual Arts
Communication is, therefore, the second reason thanks to which Brook uses the term
empty space, and it is the same attempt to overcome ambivalent relation inside-outside
(extimité), which Lacan uses for describing psychoanalytic position of the subject.
Every communication as such has that extimité character because of its realization in the
emptiness between two subjects, but also in the subjects alone. For overcoming this
double character of the communication, Brook has used the term of empty space just
because of its property to be in a domain of subjective feeling, but at the same time in a
domain of concrete reality as well. For, communication in theatre is not only an
individual experience of the actors or the audience, but the collective act, which is
materialized in the emptiness of the theatre’s physical space. [11] Namely, this kind of
communication in which all of a sudden a meaning comes up, is not something that is
defined and has duration, but it happens in a moment, it is elusive, not in a domain of a
language, nor the Imaginary, but in the Real; and that is, then, nothing else but the
empty space.
So, besides the fact that the term empty space is used in the theatre and likewise in
psychoanalysis, the reasons (logical, discursive…) for its usage are identical. In both
fields the subject of inquiry are impossible terms, something unknown, inexpressible.
On the other side, those terms are never only psychological, but are in some way always
materialized in reality, and because of that they have that extimité character. The empty
space conceptually balances between the possible/impossible, outside/inside responses
as well on both previous requirements.
„In order for something of quality to take place, an empty space needs to be created. An
empty space makes it possible for a new phenomenon to come to life, for anything that
touches on content, meaning, expression, language and music can exist only if the
experience is fresh and new. However, no fresh and new experience is possible if there
isn't a pure, virgin space ready to receive it “. [12]
Especially important view on the subject of empty space in Brook’s theory is that the
emptiness has a creative potential, that the empty space is a prerequisite for the
emergence of anything that could have an authentic quality, deliberated of a priori
constructed narratives. This aspect is a value that could be analyzed in a context of
contemporary social theory, which is a topic of the next part of the work.
EMPTY SPACE AS A NEW
Since the sixties of the last century the project Spatial Turn has expanded the notion of
space. Its proponents have the intension to understand and describe the social processes
and changes from the spatial aspect, and that is a theoretical background of this work as
well. The empty space is, because of that, seen as a paradigm of contemporary society,
as a cause the same as a consequence of contemporary social movements.
Simultaneously, besides the fact that the empty space is marked as a negative concept, it
could also have a positive index.
Processes that establish a feel of emptiness and depict the paradigmatic character of
empty space are virtualization and spectatularization. These processes are, in some
context, also mentioned by Slavoj Žižek in the text “Welcome to the Desert of the
Real”, where he investigates the relationship between contemporary society and
reality/Real. The Real is distanced from the everyday experience of reality by
SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts
virtualization, in which the real reality is experienced as virtual, and by
spectatularization as the only way of dealing with the Real. One of the examples, which
Žižek uses are so-called cutters – people who have the irresistible need for cutting their
own bodies in order to finally feel alive and overcome the virtual character of reality.
[13] Another example is the collapse of the World Trade Centre, the event which is
spectacular to such an extent, most of all, because it is the only way for the Western
Society to confront with the real horror that happened. [14]
Virtualization is produced by theatralization of the Real, and its strength increases the
doubt and encourages the passion for the Real. The Real could here be very easily
understood as some real, authentic part of reality. But, Žižek just tries to avoid this
simple division of reality on the virtual and some hidden, real reality which exists under
the surface of that virtual layer, and which is a subject of contemporary subject’s
passion. He says that, what forces the cutters to behave violently is not trying to escape
the virtual in order to grasp the Real on the other side, but the virtual self is already
filled with the Real as its spectacular (empty) effect. This means that the virtual self
consists of the Real as its own emptiness. At the place where the subject expects the
content there is nothing, and this is the main problem of the process of virtualization.
On the other hand, the problem of spectacularization is that it serves as a tool for
preventing the direct confrontation with the Real, i.e. the empty space. Therefore, the
process of creating contemporary image of reality is based on creating the empty space,
and on trying to avoid acknowledgment that there is nothing under the rich surface of
the spectacle. The place we mask, and in whose masks we recognize the essence of its
own and/or social reality, is the empty space.
Žižek wrote the above mentioned text one year after the collapse of the WTC. His
intention is the so-called “passion for the Real” in contemporary society described as a
violent act:
„If, then, the passion for the Real ends up in the pure semblance of the spectacular effect
of the Real, then, in an exact inversion, the 'postmodern' passion for the semblance ends
up in a violent return to the passion for the Real.“ [15]
Therefore, the postmodern plethora of appearances today has the outcomes in the
symptomatic violent return to the Real. This of course doesn’t leave much room for the
apprehension of the empty space as a creative and potent. Meanwhile, Alen Badiou,
French philosopher has a specific comprehension of the concept of the Real. He sees the
Real as a new. In the widely famous book The Century Badiou with the expression “the
passion for the Real”, he actually describes the intentions of the whole 20th century. He
says that the 19th century was the epoch of creating big ideas, which the 20th century
should have put into practice, so “the passion for the Real” is recognized as a process of
a constant purification, which should have ensured the direct contact with the Real. But,
this process led the 20th century to all the violence and horrors that happened, and the
main reason for that is that the Real was comprehended as an identity, as some authentic
content. Therefore, Badiou proposes the Real figured as an emptiness and process of its
seizing not purification but what he is calling a method of “minimal difference”. This
method is explained the same as Bertolt Brecht’s distancing method. The distancing is
an emergence of emptiness, a gap between what is real in performance and what is acted
out, and this is actually what Badiou calls new and access to the Real that is not violent.
Performing and Visual Arts
This emptiness in a process of stratification of reality surface, in Badiou’s way of
thinking, is the same as in Brook’s comprehension of theatrical reality, called the gaps.
The emptiness is a way of non-violent dealing with the Real, and as such, it is a space of
real potential, a space for creation the new. Brook’s theory of an empty space is relevant
primarily to the theatrical practice. It is actually presenting itself as an extremely
important and fertile ground for rethinking and questioning some wider social
frameworks and procedures.
When the empty space is in question it appears that the acceptance of emptiness is a
price of the quest for the Real. Therefore, there is no authentic, hard core of reality that
could be grasped even if we have penetrated through the surface of contemporary
meaninglessness, because underneath the spectacle layer there is an empty space again.
But, that emptiness as such is authentic. It’s what Peter Brook teaches us – the same as a
contemporary social theory based on psychoanalytic tradition.
REFERENCES
[1] “Given this logic, space could no longer be seen simply as a backdrop against which
life unfolds sequentially, but rather, intimately tied to lived experience. As Foucault
suggests, space ’takes the form of relations among sites’”, Warf B. and Arias S (ed.):
The Spatial Turn, Routledge, New York, 2009, pp. 4;
[2] Hal Foster, in his book The Return of the Real, as methodological approach uses the
logic of the term parallax, which actually means that our understanding of history
depends on our state, or our position in the present.
[3] This could be read as a logic immanent to the post-socialistic territories (that authors
also belong) which today lack (and in some way need) an ideological concept on wider
scale.
[4] This and the next paragraph is partially taken from the term paper Slađana Milićević
has written during the course Theoretical Principles of Developing of Architecture and
the City – selected chapters, at doctoral studies at the University of Novi Sad, Serbia.
[5] „The real is ‘the impossible’ (S11, 167) because it is impossible to imagine,
impossible to integrate into the symbolic order, and impossible to attain in any way. It is
this character of impossibility and of resistance to symbolization which lends the real
it’s essentially traumatic quality“, Evans D: An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian
Psychoanalysis, Routledge, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006, pp. 163;
[6] „…there is an invisible world which needs to be made visible. There are several
layers of invisible. In the twentieth century we know only too well the psychological
layer, this obscure area between what is expressed and what is concealed. Nearly all
contemporary theatre recognizes the great Freudian underworld where, behind the
gesture or the words, can be found the invisible zone of the ego, the super-ego and the
unconscious. This level of psychological invisibility has nothing to do with sacred
theatre. "Holy Theatre" implies that there is something else in existence, below, around
and above, another zone even more invisible, even farther from the forms which we are
capable of reading or recording, which contain extremely powerful sources of energy“,
Brook P: The Open Door, Theatre Communications Group Inc., New York, 1995, pp.
70;
SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts
[7] Brook P: Does Nothing Come from Nothing?, Ernest Jones Lecture given by Peter
Brook in 1994 at The Edward Lewis Theatre, UCL, London
[8] Brook P: The Open Door, Theatre Communications Group Inc., New York, 1995,
pp. 32;
[9] Žižek S: Ispitivanje Realnog (Interrogating the Real), Akademska knjiga (Academic
Book), Novi Sad, 2008, pp. 281; (authors’ translation)
[10] Brook P: The Open Door, Theatre Communications Group Inc., New York, 1995,
pp. 70;
[11] “Another aspect of the empty space is that the emptiness is shared: it's the same
space for everyone who is present”, Brook P: The Open Door, Theatre Communications
Group Inc., New York, 1995, pp. 6;
[12] Brook P: The Open Door, Theatre Communications Group Inc., New York, 1995,
pp. 4;
[13] “Far from being suicidal, far from indicating a desire for self-annihilation, cutting
is a radical attempt to (re)gain a hold on reality...”, Žižek S: Welcome to the Desert of
the Real! (Five Essays on September 11 and Related Dates), Verso, London and New
York, 2002, pp. 10;
[14] „And the same 'derealization' of the horror went on after the WTC collapse: while
the number of victims - 3,000 – is repeated all the time, it is surprising how little of the
actual carnage we see - no dismembered bodies, no blood, no desperate faces of dying
people...“, Žižek S: Welcome to the Desert of the Real! (Five Essays on September 11
and Related Dates), Verso, London and New York, 2002, pp. 13;
[15] Žižek S: Welcome to the Desert of the Real! (Five Essays on September 11 and
Related Dates), Verso, London and New York, 2002, pp. 9-10;
LITERATURE
Brook P: The Open Door, Theatre Communications Group Inc., New York, 1995
Brook P: Does Nothing Come from Nothing?, Ernest Jones Lecture given by Peter
Brook in 1994 at The Edward Lewis Theatre, UCL, London, downloaded from:
http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b15c1.php
Evans D: An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis, Routledge, Taylor &
Francis e-Library, 2006
Milićević S: Prazan prostor (The Empty Space), term paper, University of Novi Sad,
Novi Sad, Serbia, 2014.
Warf B. and Arias S (ed.): The Spatial Turn, Routledge, New York, 2009
Žižek S: Ispitivanje Realnog (Interrogating the Real), Akademska knjiga (Academic
Book), Novi Sad, 2008
Žižek S: Welcome to the Desert of the Real! (Five Esseys on September 11 and Related
Dates), Verso, London and New York, 2002